Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 20:02:39 GMT -5
In the reference to the Deadspin article mentioned by bigfan, the second to last paragraph: UW never reported Strickland’s claims to the police at Strickland’s request. Shick was hired by Grand Canyon University in Nov. 2018, and they say they were not made aware of the investigation and that it did not show up on a background check (Shick was fired on Sunday). In fact, Washington “only shared the finding with a small group of university and athletic department officials.” deadspin.com/uw-found-a-volleyball-stars-sexual-assault-allegation-1835462345Edit: It would have been possible to file the report with police without naming Strickland in the report. If UW really want to protect themselves from allegations of cover up that is what they would have done. I’m not familiar with WA state laws or Seattle local laws, but this type of reporting has and does happen. It protects the employer, the victim, and the accused.
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Jun 12, 2019 20:11:34 GMT -5
Hats off to Strickland for having the bravery to come forward. I’m so sorry this happened. Solidarity and support from the “other UW.”
|
|
|
Post by luckydawg on Jun 12, 2019 20:29:08 GMT -5
A few observations: - Cassie was an athletic department intern at the time of the assault;
- She did not report the assault, though later discussed with the university's sports psychologist;
- The psychologist (a UW employee) reported the incident fit investigation;
- Cassie, the victim, specifically did not want a police report made. This is within her rights;
- UW investigated, find the report credible and immediately terminated Shick;
- UW's options were limited in a no-win situation. Publicizing what happened would go against the victim's wishes and likely result in a libel suit by Shick, since there had been no actual adjudication.
|
|
|
Post by preschooler on Jun 12, 2019 20:42:09 GMT -5
A few observations: - Cassie was an athletic department intern at the time of the assault; - She did not report the assault, though later discussed with the university's sports psychologist; - The psychologist (a UW employee) reported the incident fit investigation; - Cassie, the victim, specifically did not want a police report made. This is within her rights; - UW investigated, find the report credible and immediately terminated Shick; - UW's options were limited in a no-win situation. Publicizing what happened would go against the victim's wishes and likely result in a libel suit by Shick, since there had been no actual adjudication. Tbh I think all of this is truly the case but I still argue that the present way of perpetuating the problem
|
|
|
Post by pepperbrooks on Jun 12, 2019 20:52:56 GMT -5
Pretty sure former employers are not allowed to tell future / potential employers anything.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 12, 2019 21:12:18 GMT -5
Pretty sure former employers are not allowed to tell future / potential employers anything. Of course that's not necessarily true. As long as the information is not the type that is specifically prohibited by law, there is no restriction on sharing employment information with prospective employers. Many employers only give dates of employment or perhaps salary information, but that isn't a legal requirement. The problem is that people tend to give opinions that may or may not have a factual basis ("He wouldn't be a good fit for that type of work"). There is nothing wrong with telling a prospective employer, "There was a complaint of a sexual assault. We investigated and found it credible. He was allowed to resign." The truth is an absolute defense against slander or libel.
|
|
|
Post by preschooler on Jun 12, 2019 21:14:20 GMT -5
Pretty sure former employers are not allowed to tell future / potential employers anything. Of course that's not necessarily true. As long as the information is not the type that is specifically prohibited by law, there is no restriction on sharing employment information with prospective employers. Many employers only give dates of employment or perhaps salary information, but that isn't a legal requirement. The problem is that people tend to give opinions that may or may not have a factual basis ("He wouldn't be a good fit for that type of work"). There is nothing wrong with telling a prospective employer, "There was a complaint of a sexual assault. We investigated and found it credible. He was allowed to resign." The truth is an absolute defense against slander or libel. Yes this!
|
|
|
Post by pepperbrooks on Jun 12, 2019 21:29:21 GMT -5
Pretty sure former employers are not allowed to tell future / potential employers anything. Of course that's not necessarily true. As long as the information is not the type that is specifically prohibited by law, there is no restriction on sharing employment information with prospective employers. Many employers only give dates of employment or perhaps salary information, but that isn't a legal requirement. The problem is that people tend to give opinions that may or may not have a factual basis ("He wouldn't be a good fit for that type of work"). There is nothing wrong with telling a prospective employer, "There was a complaint of a sexual assault. We investigated and found it credible. He was allowed to resign." The truth is an absolute defense against slander or libel. I don’t see a lot of businesses doing that.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 12, 2019 21:32:47 GMT -5
Pretty sure former employers are not allowed to tell future / potential employers anything. Of course that's not necessarily true. As long as the information is not the type that is specifically prohibited by law, there is no restriction on sharing employment information with prospective employers. Many employers only give dates of employment or perhaps salary information, but that isn't a legal requirement. The problem is that people tend to give opinions that may or may not have a factual basis ("He wouldn't be a good fit for that type of work"). There is nothing wrong with telling a prospective employer, "There was a complaint of a sexual assault. We investigated and found it credible. He was allowed to resign." The truth is an absolute defense against slander or libel. First, there wasn’t an actual complaint. But still, this is mostly true. Could’ve said there were rumors that we investigated and we found it was likely to have been true. However, there were probably only a handful of people who knew due to the private nature of these proceedings (for protection of the victim, not the university). The AD was one of them. And I agree if she was talked to, she probably should’ve said something.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 12, 2019 21:36:50 GMT -5
Of course that's not necessarily true. As long as the information is not the type that is specifically prohibited by law, there is no restriction on sharing employment information with prospective employers. Many employers only give dates of employment or perhaps salary information, but that isn't a legal requirement. The problem is that people tend to give opinions that may or may not have a factual basis ("He wouldn't be a good fit for that type of work"). There is nothing wrong with telling a prospective employer, "There was a complaint of a sexual assault. We investigated and found it credible. He was allowed to resign." The truth is an absolute defense against slander or libel. I don’t see a lot of businesses doing that. That's true. But limiting the info they provide is a business decision made with the intention of avoiding any kind of legal entanglement, rather than a legal requirement.
|
|
|
Post by preschooler on Jun 12, 2019 21:38:24 GMT -5
Of course that's not necessarily true. As long as the information is not the type that is specifically prohibited by law, there is no restriction on sharing employment information with prospective employers. Many employers only give dates of employment or perhaps salary information, but that isn't a legal requirement. The problem is that people tend to give opinions that may or may not have a factual basis ("He wouldn't be a good fit for that type of work"). There is nothing wrong with telling a prospective employer, "There was a complaint of a sexual assault. We investigated and found it credible. He was allowed to resign." The truth is an absolute defense against slander or libel. I don’t see a lot of businesses doing that. Exactly the problem
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 12, 2019 21:42:50 GMT -5
Of course that's not necessarily true. As long as the information is not the type that is specifically prohibited by law, there is no restriction on sharing employment information with prospective employers. Many employers only give dates of employment or perhaps salary information, but that isn't a legal requirement. The problem is that people tend to give opinions that may or may not have a factual basis ("He wouldn't be a good fit for that type of work"). There is nothing wrong with telling a prospective employer, "There was a complaint of a sexual assault. We investigated and found it credible. He was allowed to resign." The truth is an absolute defense against slander or libel. First, there wasn’t an actual complaint. But still, this is mostly true. Could’ve said there were rumors that we investigated and we found it was likely to have been true. However, there were probably only a handful of people who knew due to the private nature of these proceedings (for protection of the victim, not the university). The AD was one of them. And I agree if she was talked to, she probably should’ve said something. There was a complaint. Sometimes, a distinction is made between formal and informal complaints, but it was a complaint that formed the basis for the actions taken by the Title IX Office/Officer. No one should say "There were rumors..." when giving a reference. My whole point was about sticking to facts.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Jun 13, 2019 7:24:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jun 13, 2019 7:50:46 GMT -5
I think that the NCAA could certainly could lead on this issue in a much better way than they have. This is not within the authority of the NCAA. They do not run the schools.
|
|
|
Post by pancakes on Jun 13, 2019 8:18:32 GMT -5
Why I don’t understand is why do people give the power the the universities to be the police, DA, judge, and jury all in one? There are heinous crimes being committed that are not being reported to the actual police. Security on campus should be limited to parking tickets and maybe some basic college level infractions (underage drinking, disturbing the peace, etc). If something bad happened to me on campus, I’m going to the real police. I’m not letting some judiciary panel decide my fate. The power is actually with the victim to decide where this goes. Strickland did not want this to become a thing. Right or wrong, it's her decision. Wrong. The university knew a crime happened. Strickland was in a position of vulnerability. The police MUST be informed. Period. An employee commits a crime and the university decides to PAY the victim to keep quiet. Your premise that the victim decides is total bull. The reason this is bull is what happened after the assault. He gets a better job at another university. THAT's why the police and any and all authorities must know about the assault; it cannot live in a vacuum.
|
|